Judge berates P2P lawyer for abuse of legal system, tosses cases

Judge berates P2P lawyer for abuse of legal system, tosses cases.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2011/03/M7Nc8.jpg[/newsimage]Another mass porn file-sharing lawsuit bites the dust, as prosecuting lawyer John Steele is berated by Illinois Federal judge Milton Shadur with a tongue-lashing that included an accusation that the attorney had “abused the litigation system in more than one way.”

Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/judge-berates-p2p-lawyer-for-abuse-of-legal-system-tosses-cases-41217/](http://www.myce.com/news/judge-berates-p2p-lawyer-for-abuse-of-legal-system-tosses-cases-41217/)

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

I just about spit coffee all over my keyboard when I read this from the article:

“I don’t see any justification at all for this action,” Judge Shadur told Steele as he tossed out the case that accused 300 John Doe defendants of illegally sharing the CP Productions porn flick [B][I]Cowgirl Creampie[/I][/B].

I have this vision of the Judge and others in the courtroom saying “Cowgirl Creampie” over and over again. LOL!

Would the judge respond in the same way if this was a lawyer representing the MPAA or RIAA?

[QUOTE=TheDiggler;2579519]Would the judge respond in the same way if this was a lawyer representing the MPAA or RIAA?[/QUOTE]

One could only hope that he would respond in the same manor. :iagree:

People seem to be caught up in the pornography side of this issue… I do not see why the law should be applied differently when someone torrents “Charlie Wilson’s Whore” rather than “Charlie Wilson’s War.” If you share a file with thousands of mostly-anonymous people, you are asking for trouble, no matter what the title is. American law is pretty clear about copyright infringement, no? The trolls obviously chose porn because people will be more eager to settle quickly. I wonder if the judge had a personal concern about the IP addresses getting leaked…

The law is what the overwhelming masses of people determine it to be. If half the population partakes in file sharing then be default it is essentially “legal” because the law is unenforceable. This is where file sharing is headed if it isn’t there already. I am not saying it is fair, right, etc. but it is the reality of things. This isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened. Technically, it has occurred with recording TV shows on VCRs. We all know how effective the studios were at stopping this type of copy infringement. It won’t be any different with music or movies. This is why the studios, music artists, record companies etc. had better find an economic model that works with file sharing. Personally, I think they need to lump all media in one pot and make it available for download easily for a nominal fee. Basically, out file share the pirates by making the cost so little to download legally that illegal downloads aren’t worth the hassle anymore. IMO, the providers would make more money since their customer base would be massive by working deals with cable companies, ISPs etc. Imagine the fees generated if every Internet user paid $5-$10 per month for the service?